Pretty sure you're just being trolled, Sarissa. You gave clearcut examples of countries whereby our engagements with them have been plastered all over the major networks, with almost every significant political analysis pointing to them as foreign policy blunders(on both sides). You elaborated on the Syrian example, which was point-blank ignored. You been trolled.

Besides, we all know Obama can't win on foreign policy with you guys. He can either go full force into a nation that is perceived as being "bad" and you'll blast him for getting us into another war. He can take the Libya approach and use the least amount of resources and lives to accomplish the goal and you'll blast him for the actions of whoever is in charge after the regime falls. He can do nothing and you'll blast him for standing by and being weak while the regime kills citizens.

Funny how "you guys" changes... some of those guys were obama supporters if I recall. I guess you guys is anyone who criticizes obama. you may not feel they offered enough substance, but you've offered none.

What substance do you want me to offer? Like I said, no matter what Obama does it'll be indefensible in your eyes. Personally, for instance, I found the Libya strategy to be very effective for us as a nation. No long occupation or our soldiers dying. But it gets painted as a "weak hand" on Obamas' part and a bad foreign relations move.

On the other hand, I suppose I am being a little unfair. I'm sure not everyone hates everything Obama does, just a lot of people hate different things. Then I hear each of them and bundle them all together into a "you guys" group that - combined - hates everything Obama does.

There was no trolling there. Here... I will give you good examples of Obama diplomacy. Just scan through the news. Look at how we're handling Iran, China, Russia, Sudan, and Syria compared to Lybia.

Apparently that is good enough. Bovinity voiced my frustration. It feels like no matter what he does some people will spin it into a huge negative because he isn't their guy. Or they will stay nice and vague so they can't be pinned down. It makes it so hard to not get frustrated and cynical about the while process we use to elect leaders.

I don't really hate Obama. I've chilled quite a bit since 08. But everything I thought would happen has happened. None of the "changing Washington" promises came through, so we're truly left with a politician with very little experience or ability to move the needle.

In regards to foreign policy, I wish I knew what the theme was. Why are we in Afghanistan? That was his escalation, and it seems to have accomplished nothing. Our relations with Israel are worse than when he took office. The Arab Spring has amounted to nothing - old dictators for new dictators. We didn't support Iran's unrest. We seem to have as many boneheaded scandals and controversies as we had with Bush (Secret Service, lone soldiers murdering women and children, drones bombing innocents, open mics, etc.). North Korea is just as bad, if not worse, than ever. We're just as dependent on foreign oil as ever before, with no new foreign policy leverage to show for it. We sold central Europe out to Russia by abandoning missile defense in return for nothing.

If you accept that things were SHIT before he took office, it's not good enough that things haven't gotten worse. Things also needed to get better and haven't.

What, are we trading hostages now? Joxur, you seem to be suggesting that if someone blamed Bush for Abu Graib, that it would then be okay for someone to blame Obama for isolated soldiers attacking civilians? Is that your point?

What the fuck is this, 18th century Catholicism? You're just haggling over the price now?

Conversely, it would be rather ignorant to look at Abu Ghraib or another similar incident from within the confines of a vacuum. Can't say I'd place even a majority of the blame on the President, however, environments make it possible for people to commit such acts.

Saying "oh they were just a few psychopaths" ignores the situation that led to such an incident, not only in terms of its allowance, but the social and authoritative background surrounding it.

I didn't realize how powerful G.W. Bush was. This past week Obama was still blaming the current economic problems on Bush...

The Bush tax cuts, combined with two pointless wars that cost trillions, combined with deregulation of the banking and mortgage industry pushed by Bush all did much to create the situation we are in now. Yes, Bush is that powerful. You cannot make that all magically disappear in 4 years. Obama has always said this. Anyone can see this is true, and would have been true no matter who was in the White House after Bush left.

I didn't realize how powerful G.W. Bush was. This past week Obama was still blaming the current economic problems on Bush...

The Bush tax cuts, combined with two pointless wars that cost trillions, combined with deregulation of the banking and mortgage industry pushed by Bush all did much to create the situation we are in now. Yes, Bush is that powerful. You cannot make that all magically disappear in 4 years. Obama has always said this. Anyone can see this is true, and would have been true no matter who was in the White House after Bush left.

The Bush tax cuts were extended under Obama (and undoubtedly will be again).Two pointless wars I will handle seperately. The Iraqi adventure was ended on Bush's timetable and not a moment sooner; in fact, Obama tried to keep us there but the Iraqi's said no. The Afghanistan adventure was widened under Obama and he is about to sign an agreement keeping us involved there for another decade. You forgot the other Bush-era budget item that most Democrats like to blame, so I will list it for you: Medicare Prescription drug program. It has also been allowed to continue without change or funding mechanism under Obama.

Pretending that Obama has no responsibility for being fiscally prudent because his predecessor wasn't is disingenuous.